A recent study on how racial discrimination affects American support for Obama and his health care reform revealed some interesting results.

According to the study by Eric Knowles of UC Irvine, the study tested 285 whites, Latinos and Asians for underlying bias against blacks.

About 45 percent of the subjects identified themselves a liberal or very liberal, while 25 percent said they were conservative or very conservative.

The study did not attempt to measure how pervasive prejudice is rather it measures if Obama’s skin color has an effect on the perception of him and his policies.

The results show that half of the participants who were deemed to be most racially biased were 43% most likely to vote against Obama than the other half.

Among those more highly prejudiced participants, 65% liked the health plan when it was attributed to Clinton while only 41% liked it when it was attributed to Obama.

The GOP rebukes the study saying that Obama would not have won and became president if racism existed in a serious level.

I think the study shows that although racism has gone down far enough for us to actually elect a black president.

It did not actually remove some of our preconceptions, ideas or even just negative feelings against people of different races.

It exists in many workplaces where employment decisions are based on a person’s race even though sometimes it is done unconsciously.

Racism will not disappear anytime in the near future. What we can do is work on ourselves to make sure that despite what we think of others, we can be better people by seeing past what we think and see what really is.

There is great news for many Californians who can’t help but feel the grinding jaws of recession and who find it hard to find a new job—a bill extending unemployment benefits for 13 weeks has been approved by the Congress. So now, it’ll just need the approval of the Senate and the President before it becomes a law.

According to the Employment Development Department (EDD), around 170,000 Californians whose benefits will run out by the end of the year can jobless benefits paying $65 to $475 a week.

EDD officials estimate that 66,000 unemployed residents have already been cut off of California’s unemployment.

The extension is extremely beneficial for the many Californians who find it hard to get a new job in the market and with the unemployment rate still on the rise when it hit 12.2% in August.

The worldwide recession has hit a lot of Californians hard and many have lost their jobs when the employers began to cut the workforce to save on wages. While there are some who have found their feet back after taking a plunge in the tumultuous job market, more have yet to find new jobs and it is not because of a lack of effort.

Some people find it hard to find a new job because their skills and qualifications are not suited to the open positions and sometimes, there are just too many workers with too little available jobs.

Unemployment benefits give employees who are down on their luck, a little breathing room and relief for their family while they try to find gainful employment.

People shouldn’t be deprived of their basic necessities for their daily living just because they lost their job due to the bad economy. The passage of law extending unemployment benefits would give unemployed Californians and their family the chance to live their lives.

After all, if they don’t have money for food, gas, or other necessities, how can they find a job and work in the first place?

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA, employers whether private, state and local governments so long as they have 15 or more employees are prohibited from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities.

The protection given to qualified disabled employees by this federal law extend to job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Target, the fifth largest retailer in the United States is now currently facing charges from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly denying a disabled Orange County employee equal rights in one of its store.

Jeremy Schott from Orange County was a part-time employee at Target’s Foothill Ranch store. He was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy and the store had allegedly reduced Schott’s work hours because of his medical condition.

Likewise, the EEOC claimed that Target didn’t notify Schott’s job coach and parents of any “in-person” meetings involving work issues, and that Schott had to attend the meetings alone despite repeated requests to include job coaches and parents at the meetings. Because of his condition, Schott “could not effectively communicate with others without the assistance of a job coach”.

Anna Park, an EEOC regional attorney said that despite Schott’s cerebral palsy, he was still considered as a qualified employee and was motivated to work but Target denied him his right to an equal opportunity to succeed in the workplace.

Disabled employees have the same rights as ordinary employees do, but because of employers who try to take advantage of their condition, the ADA has specifically provided for certain employment protection for impaired employees.

Under the ADA, an employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a qualified applicant or employee if it would not impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business.

Excluding Jeremy Schott’s parents and job coach in the meetings over work issues is not justifiable at all. Given that Schott’s condition impairs his ability to properly communicate, the attendance of his parents and job coach would be a reasonable accommodation especially if they want to be fair to their employee.

But Target, without even granting that reasonable accommodation arbitrarily reduced Schott’s work hours. They didn’t even consider job restructuring or reassignment.

While an employer is not required to lower quality or production standards to make an accommodation, the law provides that he give a reasonable accommodation at the very least, to enable these disabled individuals a chance to become productive citizens.

Michael Jackson’s untimely death brought shock and sadness to everyone. Beneath the layer of several plastic surgeries was a talented entertainer who had once removed the barriers of racial discrimination through his songs.

People knew Jackson for his world-famous, trademark dance moves and chart-topping songs. He was inarguably one of the most popular recording artists of all time.

However, people knew little or nothing about his career as a businessman. All this time, Jackson had ventured into several businesses to expand his empire and dealings.

When Jackson collaborated with Paul McCartney in the songs “The Girl is Mine” and “Say Say Say”, McCartney introduced him to the business of music catalogs.

Subsequently, he began his business career of buying, selling and distributing publishing rights to music from numerous artists.

In 2006, Jackson began experiencing financial problems. Consequently, the main house on the Neverland Ranch was closed as a cost-cutting measure. Also during that time, he faced one major financial concern regarding a $270 million loan secured against his music publishing holdings. To help him out of the loan, he agreed to Sony’s backed refinancing deal.

The financial crisis caused Jackson’s net worth to drop. However, private-equity firm Colony Capital’s Tom Barrack was determined to set Jackson’s comeback and made dealings with him. Barrack said that the economic downturn made Jackson even more attractive for investment.

The value of Neverland and related assets was made the collateral for the money Colony had put up for Jackson. Should Jackson regain his financial footing, future deals with Barrack were expected.

However, Barrack could only hope for what could have been a promising partnership between them. Jackson’s death certainly put a toll, if not a total stop to all their plans.

Except on obligations personal to Jackson, Barrack could negotiate with Jackson’s surviving family for all others. Both parties just need to employ the services of an experienced and skilled business lawyer to iron out problems that would come their way.

According to  this article in the New York Times, an attorney in New York filed a discrimination claim against Columbia University accusing the University of discriminating against males.  The suit alleges that by offering women’s studies programs without a corresponding “men’s studies” program, the University is violating the Equal Protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.   The U.S. District Court in New York dismissed the suit on April 23, 2007,  noting that the suit was baseless and frivolous.

As ridiculous as this claim is, it underlines one of the considerations that a potential litigant should consider before filing a discrimination or harassment lawsuit.   (more…)